Out Of The Mouth Of Babes

[mdb]

Discuss as you will. I just thought I would post it as a good scriptural truth.

Then the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. But when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” [Jesus] they were indignant and said to Him, “Do You hear what these are saying?”

And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,

‘Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants

You have perfected praise’?”

Then He left them and went out of the city to Bethany, and He lodged there.

(Matt 21:14-17)

O Lord [Yhwh], our Lord,

How excellent is Your name in all the earth,

Who have set Your glory above the heavens!

Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants

You have ordained strength,

Because of Your enemies,

That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.

(Ps 8:1-2)

The chief priests were indignant because the people were giving praise to Jesus. Hosanna translates as, “oh save!” or “save, we pray” – an exclamation of adoration and praise. Jesus’ response to the chief priests is noteworthy since by it He points to His true identity – being God. Jesus quotes a scripture which is given to the Lord (Yhwh), the one and only true God, and indicates this prophetic passage as being fulfilled at that moment in Himself through the praise given by the people toward Him. Without question, by His use of this passage from the Psalms, Jesus says, “I am the Lord. I am Yhwh.” This is in agreement with many other scriptures such as when he asked His disciples, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter responds, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” To Peter’s answer Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 16:15-17) And Thomas also later responds to seeing the risen Lord by exclaiming, “My Lord and My God!” (Jn 20:28) A great confession to His deity.

[BenRaines]

LDS proclaim to the world that Jesus Christ is the son of the Living God. We do not claim that the Son is his own Father. God the Father being one member of the Godhead and The Son, Jesus Christ being another member.

Ben Raines

[Dr T]

Christianity does not say that the Son is his own Father either. Just to be clear.

[Guest Yediyd]

Christianity does not say that the Son is his own Father either. Just to be clear.

I take issue to the wording of your post, T...we Mormons ARE Christians. Why the need for a distinction?

[CrimsonKairos]

Christianity does not say that the Son is his own Father either. Just to be clear.

No, but the Nicene Creed says there is only one God...yet then lists the Father as a God, the Son as a God from a God (that makes two), Jesus and the Holy Ghost as separate Lords...its anything but clear and coherent.

It's double-talk of the worst sort. It's like the proverbial dog sleeping in a horse's feeding trough...the dog neither eats the food nor allows the horse to eat of the food either. It's obfuscation and chicanery of the lowest order and I find it repulsive and ridiculous.

God the Father has an exalted body of flesh and bone (not blood) as tangible as the risen Christ's exalted body of flesh and bone, while the Spirit has only a spirit body. They are three separate Beings, they do not share essence or substance, they exist independently of each other but act together, and the Father presides over the other two.

[Dr T]

We've been over it. Three distinct personages (Trinity) make up One and only God.

Yed,

There is a distinction. LDS has taught for years that they are different and have different beliefs than Christianity. Until recently, it has started to change and move toward wanting to be called Christian.

[Guest Yediyd]

We've been over it. Three distinct personages (Trinity) make up One and only God.

Yed,

There is a distinction. LDS has taught for years that they are different and have different beliefs than Christianity. Until recently, it has started to change and move toward wanting to be called Christian.

I don't know enough about church history (apparently), But I personally, have been a Christain most of my life!!!!

*edited quotation for accuracy* ~CK

[Dr T]

The quote attributed to me above is not accurate. Somethings going on with your quote Yed.

[CrimsonKairos]

I fixed Yed's quotation for ya, Dr. T.

Now as for your claim about LDS history, that's not true.

The difference is that recently the LDS Church has started challenging the age-old claim that we aren't Christian.

The LDS Church never said, "We're not Christian."

That's what everyone else said.

[Dr T]

I'm referring to the idea that JS said that God told him not to join any of the churches because their creeds were an abomination. Hinkley has said, "We don't believe in the same Jesus or have the same beliefs" (not an actual quote really but something like that) making the distinction. I see that we worship a different God. Mine was not put into that position by progression and people cannot become a god. When I say Christian, I'm referring to Christianity as it is known. I don't call LDS Christian in my posts that's all. I say that because we have a different understanding of God, who Jesus is fundamentally and the concept of the Triune Deity, God. The core precepts of believing in Jesus as God, not "a god" and belief in an infinite number of Gods is opposed to my understanding of Christianity. It's polytheism while I believe in one God in three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). We use different definitions for the same words a lot. I'm not trying to rock the boat, I'm just responding to your post Yed, and why I make that distinction. I know that will bring up a lot and I've already talked about how we see those things differently in my previous posts. Sorry if I was offensive to you Yed. That's where I'm coming from.

[CrimsonKairos]

Isn't a Christian--at their core--someone who relies on Christ for salvation from sin and death?

I don't deny you the "status" of Christian because we differ in concepts of ontology and theology.

You and I both believe Christ will bring us back to God. We disagree on how and what's required, but we both confess the need for Christ to save us.

To me, that's what a Christian is. But hey, that's just me.

[Dr T]

Thanks for correcting that CK. That is the difficulty. We both depend on the name Jesus but differ in the above concepts of what that means at it's core. Don't get me wrong; God is the only one that knows. None of us can verify/ratify who God sees as "a true believer." I'm just basing my distinction on my knowledge so far and will probably continue to do so until I change my perspective. No direct offense intended to the brothers and sisters on this site.

[Guest TheLordSaves]

Isn't a Christian--at their core--someone who relies on Christ for salvation from sin and death?

Yes, but also a Christian believes in what He has said and nothing that contradicts that. One must obey His words. Jesus clearly spoke that He is one with God, and that has only been One God at all times. Before He left earth, He said "baptize in the Name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." How does one trust someone, if he doesn't believe what he says. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. They are not three, but are all God. It is like time. Past, Present, and Future, is all part of one notion called Time. They are not different from each other, but are in themselves distinct.

There are many examples of trinities on earth. Ice, Water, Gas is even another example, they are the same molecules just in different distinctions. I hope I making this clear, it is kind of hard to understand.

[pam]

<div class='quotemain'>

Isn't a Christian--at their core--someone who relies on Christ for salvation from sin and death?

Yes, but also a Christian believes in what He has said and nothing that contradicts that. One must obey His words. Jesus clearly spoke that He is one with God, and that has only been One God at all times. Before He left earth, He said "baptize in the Name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." How does one trust someone, if he doesn't believe what he says. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. They are not three, but are all God. It is like time. Past, Present, and Future, is all part of one notion called Time. They are not different from each other, but are in themselves distinct.

There are many examples of trinities on earth. Ice, Water, Gas is even another example, they are the same molecules just in different distinctions. I hope I making this clear, it is kind of hard to understand.

My understanding of "being one with God" would be one in purpose. Just my two cents for what it is worth. I believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three distinct separate entities. Not one but three.

[Guest TheLordSaves]

My understanding of "being one with God" would be one in purpose. Just my two cents for what it is worth. I believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three distinct separate entities. Not one but three.

Well Jesus Himself did not shun away the worship of His followers, unless you are saying that Jesus is a separate God(I'm not sure that you are saying that). Why would He take the worship of His followers if He was not God Himself in the flesh. If He wasn't than that would have been blasphemous, and I don't think that he was that either

[Dr T]

Yes Pammy. Seperate and not the same person but they make up One God is what I'd say.

[CrimsonKairos]

Three Gods form one Godhead.

Simple.

There is either one God or three Gods.

The Trinity wants it both ways.

[mdb]

Something more to think about below...

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ [Ex 17:2,7], as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents [Num 21:5-9]; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer.

(1 Co 10:1-10)

And the Lord [Yhwh] went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night. He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day or the pillar of fire by night from before the people.

(Ex 13:21,22)

And the Angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud went from before them and stood behind them. So it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel. Thus it was a cloud and darkness to the one, and it gave light by night to the other, so that the one did not come near the other all that night.

(Ex 14:19-20)

Now it came to pass, in the morning watch, that the Lord [Yhwh] looked down upon the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud, and He troubled the army of the Egyptians.

(Ex 14:24)

Who went before the Israelites? Was it the Lord or the Angel of God? Actually, both. The Scriptures do not contradict here since the Angel of God (the Angel of the Lord) was the Word who later became flesh, the pre-incarnate Christ. We can clearly see throughout scriptural evidence that Jesus is God. In fact, Christ has to be Lord if the people tempted Him during the exodus. The OT account claims that it was Jehovah that the people tempted and spoke against. If Jesus Christ is not Jehovah, there is a contradiction within the Scriptures. This is not so and can not be true because the holy Scriptures are the words of God and He does not contradict and can not lie. Below are the passages which give an account of the people tempting Christ in the wilderness.

Therefore the people contended with Moses, and said, “Give us water, that we may drink.”

So Moses said to them, “Why do you contend with me? Why do you tempt the Lord? [Yhwh]”

(Ex 17:2)

So he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the contention of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord [Yhwh], saying, “Is the Lord [Yhwh] among us or not?”

(Ex 17:7)

And the people spoke against God [Elohim] and against Moses: “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and our soul loathes this worthless bread.” So the Lord [Yhwh] sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died.

Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord [Yhwh] and against you; pray to the Lord [Yhwh] that He take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

Then the Lord [Yhwh] said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.

(Num 21:5-9)

When the Israelites came out of Egypt and Pharaoh and all his army were thrown into the sea, the people sang a song to the Lord. In it a prophetic word regarding the Messiah was sung which says,

The Lord [Yah] is my strength and song,

And He has become my salvation;

He is my God, and I will praise Him;

My father’s God, and I will exalt Him.

(Ex 15:2)

And again in Isaiah it says,

Behold, God is my salvation,

I will trust and not be afraid;

‘For Yah [Lord], the Lord [Yhwh], is my strength and song; [‘Yah, the Lord’ or ‘Lord, Jehovah’]

He also has become my salvation.’ ”

(Is 12:2)

The Savior is Christ Jesus our Lord, Emmanuel – God with us. He came in the flesh, becoming our salvation by becoming a curse for us (hung on a tree) and rising to life again, conquering death and paying the penalty for our sins. God was pierced for our transgressions (Zec 12:10).

And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me [refering to Yhwh] whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

(Zec 12:10)

------------------------------

On another note, someone above said that God the Father has flesh and bone the same as the risen Christ. I would have to disagree. Jesus said, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (Jn 4:24) And regarding the Godhead, how can Jesus our Lord be a God separate from the Holy Spirit (a distinctly separate God in the Godhead according to Mormon theology) when it says, "the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."? (2 Co 3:17)

[CrimsonKairos]

One of the simplest LDS doctrines is that Jesus was called Jehovah before the creation of the earth, and is the God the Old Testament peoples dealt with.

Jesus has always been our Mediator with God the Father. Jesus as Jehovah spoke for God the Father and in place of God the Father...and still does.

Yes, there are scriptures that say, "God is spirit..." and there are scriptures that say, "God is love." Does that mean God is just an emotion floating in space? No. It's pointing out a specific attribute of God for a specific purpose.

These tired arguments are so lame, literally...they have no legs to stand on.

[mdb]

One of the simplest LDS doctrines is that Jesus was called Jehovah before the creation of the earth, and is the God the Old Testament peoples dealt with.

Jesus has always been our Mediator with God the Father. Jesus as Jehovah spoke for God the Father and in place of God the Father...and still does.

Yes, there are scriptures that say, "God is spirit..." and there are scriptures that say, "God is love." Does that mean God is just an emotion floating in space? No. It's pointing out a specific attribute of God for a specific purpose.

These tired arguments are so lame, literally...they have no legs to stand on.

First, you choose to ignore Numbers 21:5 where it says it was "Elohim" the people spoke against and then in the same passage it says it was Jehovah. Which one was it (if you believe they are two separate Gods)?

Second, your "God is love" response is not productive. Love is a trait or quality, not a descriptive of being. Being Spirit and being "love" are not comparable here. Jesus is also the way, the truth and the life - the only means of salvation. That doesn't make Jesus non-physical. I would agree that God is love. He is a loving Spirit. More than just being loving, God IS love - it is His nature. He cannot be unloving. The Scriptures also say that God is light and that there is no darkness in Him at all (1 Jn 1:5). I don't see what your argument is suppose to accomplish? Love, light, truth, life, the way - these are descriptive of God's nature similar to: sinless, holy, beyond reproach, blameless, righteous, perfect, etc. Saying God is flesh and bone or Spirit is a physical description, not an attribute for purpose. He is unchanging. The scriptures say that God is Spirit and you will not find a single place that says He is flesh and bone.

This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. (1 Jn 1:5)

[CrimsonKairos]

First, you choose to ignore Numbers 21:5 where it says it was "Elohim" the people spoke against and then in the same passage it says it was Jehovah. Which one was it (if you believe they are two separate Gods)?

Actually you chose to ignore my very plain statement which was, to wit:

Jesus as Jehovah spoke for God the Father and in place of God the Father...and still does.

It's called divine investiture. Jesus invests his prophets and apostles with divine authority to speak in the first person for him...the "Thus saith the Lord, I have seen your wickedness..." passages we are all familiar with.

Similarly, God the Father has invested Jesus with divine authority to speak in the first person for Him. After all, Jesus is our Mediator with God the Father. Jesus is our "go-between" with God the Father. In the Old Testament, when Heavenly Father had something to tell the world, Jesus as Jehovah delivered the message in the first person to the prophets, who then delivered the message in the first person to the world.

This "Jehovah is Elohim and that proves there's only one God or being, not three" argument is not anything new or confusing to me. Try reading D&C 109 which is the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland, Ohio Temple...and which Joseph Smith said was received by revelation. In other words, Joseph Smith didn't just wing it as he prayed...God told him what to say.

In the prayer, Joseph Smith calls upon God the Father by these titles: Lord God of Israel (v.1); Lord (v.3); Holy Father (v.4); Jehovah (v.34); and, Lord God Almighty (v.77). Wait, he's calling the Father by the name Jehovah? I thought that was Jesus! Yes, it was the title Jesus used when acting as the Father in the Old Testament. It's really not that complicated, unless you choose to make it complicated.

Second, your "God is love" response is not productive.

Because it demonstrates the absurdity of defining God's nature by one isolated scripture as you have done. Sorry, the truth hurts sometimes.

[mdb]

In order for me to read and accept any of Joseph Smith's words as genuine revelation from God, Joseph Smith has to first be proved credible (This might get deleted because I uttered such a thing). All I'm saying is to check what is said against our only credible source, the Holy Bible. If there's a discrepancy, there's something wrong with the source, not God's word. Any additional revelation God may give will not contradict what has already been spoken since God does not contradict Himself.

Joseph Smith said it was given by revelation. That's fine. I can claim the same thing of anything I want to. What authority proves it to be revelation or not? If I prophesy or say, "thus says the Lord" and what is said does not come true, I'm a false prophet. If I say this or that is the truth and it goes against the word of God, I'm a false teacher. God is the authority and His word will always stand.

There once was a man who made a false prophecy about a certain temple which was to be built in Missouri within his generation. This event failed to happen. What does that make of the man and how do we know that anything he says is true?

Take it for what it is. Your "truth" has to be true before it can hurt.

[CrimsonKairos]

Any additional revelation God may give will not contradict what has already been spoken since God does not contradict Himself.

By that standard, you must reject not only the New Testament but Jesus Christ himself.

Paul shows this clearly:

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. (Hebrews 7:14)

So Christ's priesthood authority is false since he came from the tribe of Judah, and Jehovah was clear that only the tribe of Levi was to officiate in ordinances due to their integrity on Mt. Sinai (see Ex. 32:26-28).

So Jesus's claims to authority were false, thus his disciples' teachings were false, thus the gospel as contained in the New Testament is false and we should still be living the Law of Moses as explained in the Old Testament. The Passover should still be observed, not some supper of bread and wine like Jesus taught. Baptism is unnecessary, regardless of what Jesus said. Christ had no authority to teach or institute new ordinances as a Judaean.

Man, I'm glad you explained that God does not use new revelation to contradict previous revelation! And here I was believing Jesus's claims! Phew! Free at last!

[mdb]

<div class='quotemain'>

Any additional revelation God may give will not contradict what has already been spoken since God does not contradict Himself.

By that standard, you must reject not only the New Testament but Jesus Christ himself.

Paul shows this clearly:

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. (Hebrews 7:14)

So Christ's priesthood authority is false since he came from the tribe of Judah, and Jehovah was clear that only the tribe of Levi was to officiate in ordinances due to their integrity on Mt. Sinai (see Ex. 32:26-28).

So Jesus's claims to authority were false, thus his disciples' teachings were false, thus the gospel as contained in the New Testament is false and we should still be living the Law of Moses as explained in the Old Testament. The Passover should still be observed, not some supper of bread and wine like Jesus taught. Baptism is unnecessary, regardless of what Jesus said. Christ had no authority to teach or institute new ordinances as a Judaean.

Man, I'm glad you explained that God does not use new revelation to contradict previous revelation! And here I was believing Jesus's claims! Phew! Free at last!

Melchizedek's priesthood (OT) was not of the Levite tribe either. He was without genealogy and a priest before Levi was born.

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

(Heb 7:1-3)

Regarding Hebrews 7:14, you should read a little further. While reading it I felt compelled to paste three or four chapters of it, but I think most people have access to it and posting so much would be a waste of time. Jesus' priesthood came not through the flesh, but by oath and was written in the Psalms that it should happen this way (Psalm 110:4). That's not a contradiction but a fulfilling of the Scriptures.

For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies:

“You are a priest forever

According to the order of Melchizedek.”

For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

Greatness of the New Priest

And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him:

“The Lord has sworn

And will not relent,

‘You are a priest forever

According to the order of Melchizedek’ ” ),

by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.

(Heb 7:14-22)

The Lord has sworn

And will not relent,

“You are a priest forever

According to the order of Melchizedek.”

(Ps 110:4)

[CrimsonKairos]

So yet again, we have the Lord contradicting himself.

First, Melchizedek had the priesthood.

But then, the priesthood was restricted to the Tribe of Levi.

But then, the priesthood was exercised by one from the Tribe of Judah.

But then, there was no priesthood or need of it anymore.

Talk about contradictions. Man, I'm glad God is eternal and unchanging and that nothing can be different from what God said at any point in the past.

First rule of holes, bro: When you're in one, stop digging. B)